Some might have wondered if this series was going on, but like Lovecraft, if you still have your sanity, it means it’s not over. Our last effort was pretty horrifying, what will this one entail?
Actually the next two chapters are so dull and… sensible we’ll do both at one time.
6: To bite or not to bite: Twilight, Immortality and the meaning of life
This essay is easily summed up here (plus Asahel is more entertaining). But one can find a few decent quotes like…
Though it seems to men that they live by care for themselves, in truth it is love by which they live. -Leo Tolstoy
There is a lot of discussion on how human we can be and be immortal, but this has also been discussed before in Tolkien’s various Middle Earth sagas (especially the Silmarillion) where the Elves’ immortality is contrasted with Man’s mortality – and how both of them become jealous of the other. Considering this site, I assume everyone’s already read all of that, so I won’t bore you further. Let’s move on…
7: Mind Reading and Morality: the moral hazards of being Edward
Oh yeah, THIS should be interesting.
Well actually there’s not a lot to object to in this chapter either. You can see the morality of mind reading examined when I finish the sequel to Nagasaki Moon in 2033 (going by my usual writing rate). Still, there are a few things that are debatable. Let’s go on a long rant about them shall we?
While Edward once saw some merit in directing his monstrous appetite toward violent criminals and thereby contributing to the overall happiness of society, he ultimately admits that taking a human life is inherently a serious matter and vigilante justice is morally dubious at best – especially when one desires to feed off the blood of the guilty.
Question: why? It fascinates me that “vigilantism is dubious” is assumed, not proven or analyzed like other statements in this chapter. So let’s make up for it!
Those of us who have studied criminal law, legal theory, etc (hi falconempress) will recognize an old argument. Why is vigilantism wrong? Why are they courts of the state to be preferred over it? If we look back through history and across nations, we find that nearly every human society considers it a worse injustice to hang an innocent man than to let a guilty one go free. The reasons for this are vast and varied, but since they could take up another essay, let’s just assume it is true. As such, since humans are fallible, allowing one or more to dispense punishment, makes it very likely that an innocent man would be hanged. Therefore courts of law with procedures are set up with the aim of reducing fallibility. In theory, through the courts we should always ensure that the guilty are hanged while the innocent walk free.
What does all this have to do with Edward?
HE – IS – INFALLIBLE.
Edward – can – read – minds. Unless he chooses to ignore his own gift, he will always have a 100% success rate at catching the guilty and avoiding the innocent. (though I’m sure there’s a great crime to be written about a mind reader getting fooled…) Thus what makes vigilante justice wrong for 99.9999% of society, wouldn’t apply to Edward. If anything he’ll probably have a greater success rate than most courts. Upon reflection, Edward being a vigilante is not morally dubious.
But… here’s where we find ourselves again running into the elephant in the room: Meyer’s religion. (Yes later in this chapter they’ll bring up God and souls but in a very generic way and not related to this point.) Here we find that Meyer’s religious views give us a fuller picture. While I’m not up on all of LDS theology, I’m pretty sure that – like other Christians – they believe in redemption. Now what is the moral position of Edward’s vigilantism? To a Christian, even if he encounters a confirmed, 100% guilty party, killing them ruins the opportunity for them to repent and redeem their souls. Without providing priests for a last rites or final confession (hmmm… a vampire priest… whoever uses this idea, I just ask for a little acknowledgment in your best seller), Edward’s vigilantism is a much bigger deal to the believer. (And considering that Edward’s god/author is a Christian… well, we could go all day with that meta discussion.)
What is so harmful about lack of privacy? Privacy and autonomy are directly connected to human well-being.
Then again… (and I say this as someone who highly values his own privacy), being social creatures, there is some argument that privacy and autonomy might not be that important to humans, if not counter to our well-being. Then again, it might have to do with the society and culture around us. As pointed out by JP Holding here
Malina and Neyrey note that “in group-oriented cultures such as the ancient Mediterranean, we must remember that people continually mind each other’s business.” [183] Privacy was unknown and unexpected. On the one hand, neighbors exerted “constant vigilance” over others; on the other hand, those watched were constantly concerned for appearances, and the associated rewards of honor or sanctions of shame that came with the results.
There’s more out there but I won’t bog this down further. Suffice to say, privacy and autonomy are arguably a rather recent invention of Western societies. Does that make Westerners better off than others? Like a lot of things, depends on your standards and definitions. Who knows, in one of those group-oriented cultures, Edward might have been very popular for his gift, not just his looks.
Therefore, to the degree that Edward’s mind reading is involuntary, he cannot be obligated to avoid using it. While this factor mitigates some of his responsibility, it is clear that there are many times when his invasion of others’ privacy is both deliberate and unjustified.
Yep – further proof of just how much Edward is a Sue. The concept of involuntary mind reading opens many narrative possibilities and difficulties. Does this ever come up with Sparkly? Nope. He never has trouble tuning minds out, hearing something he doesn’t want to (how many awesome points would the stories have been if we had a scene of Edward suddenly begging for brain bleach when he heard what someone was planning for a fan fic?), getting things confused, biting his tongue… In the end, it’s just another missed opportunity.
Despite Bella’s adoring evaluation of Edward’s morality, we have demonstrated that he remains a morally flawed person.
So it looks like we have 2 anti-essays in a row…
In the end, it is the very combination of Edward’s moral imperfections along with his moral aspirations that make his story so attractive, intriguing, and compelling.
Ah. Well we’ll still give this book +2 respect pending the judges ruling on that last one.
So it seems this book is getting a lot easier. Any day now we’ll be all be able to look back on this exercise and…
Chapter 8: Love & Authority Among Wolves
…
No.
Oh no….
Jeni on 31 August 2010, 21:31 said:
Interesting essay, but I think you missed out on something concerning Edward’s lack of vigilantism.
In the, admittedly brief, paragraph, you assume that the only argument against vigilantism is infallibility. However, despite Edward being able to read minds and be 100%, that still doesn’t necessarily give him the right to dispense justice.
For example, Eragon and Sloan in Brisingr. One reason that Sloan is one of my favourite characters is that he calls out on Eragon’s right to be judge and jury. He demands to know why it is Eragon’s right to banish him to the Elves. Eragon’s answer? Because he’s a dragonrider.
That isn’t an answer.
Eragon is a dragonrider by chance (and fate), he is not in power, the people have not voted him into power. Not even his village have done so.
Likewise with Edward, he has no moral authority because he hasn’t been elected, or democratically put in a position to administer justice. To act such is to rule under fear. He is the only one to know he wouldn’t abuse his power, and that wouldn’t be acceptable to any community.
I think you’re probably right about it being about Smeyer’s religion, but even if it wasn’t, I would still dispute. :D
sakuuya on 31 August 2010, 21:32 said:
Aw, c’mon! You can’t come back from a long hiatus with two relatively sane chapters, only to tease us with such a terriblarious-sounding chapter title!
Asahel on 31 August 2010, 22:19 said:
Actually, been done. Apparently a lot. I remember seeing this in a graphic novel, but I couldn’t remember the title for the life of me. An internet search turned up far more vampire priests than I expected.
The character was very interesting — tempted by a woman, and in the moment of giving in to the temptation, she turned him into a vampire. Ever after he fought crime in atonement for his sin, always wearing a small cross on his chest that kept him in constant pain and reminded him of his failing.
Has anybody else read this and remember the title?
Nate Winchester on 31 August 2010, 22:28 said:
See Jeni, if we could do better essays than this book. Heck, the very concept of a judicial system trying to adapt to something like this (even say, just general telepaths like the XMen) would make for an engaging novel.
Of course justice itself and who has the right to administer it is a debate that’s probably as old (if not older if you believe Milton) as Man himself. (are only democracies legitimate powers? what about monarchies etc?) I actually kind of assumed that – from the description of Meyerpires – if asked everyone would have voted for Edward anyway.
But those are all excellent points, and don’t let me imply that any of it is mutually exclusive to any of my points.
Jeni on 31 August 2010, 22:32 said:
I dream about that.
Actually, that’s what I love to do. Although I thoroughly enjoyed the film Sky High, I also like thinking about how I would have changed it so that it approached some very real underlying issues.
Nate Winchester on 31 August 2010, 22:49 said:
Now that you mentioned the cross detail, I feel like I’ve heard it before. Also, from John C Wright I have learned that someone apparently wrote a story before about a telepath detective.
Perhaps we are not so different after all. XD There’s a reason I have a whole section on my blog devoted to “how it could have been”. If you ever want to guest post, it would be my honor.
Jeni on 31 August 2010, 23:55 said:
:3 It’s mostly just daydreaming. And then I get distracted by mentally choreographing fight scenes for wherever I’m sitting.
I spend a lot of time in my mind.
Det on 1 September 2010, 00:16 said:
I think Edward’s vigilantism would have been a lot more morally iffy (and interesting) if he could only tell what someone was thinking at any given moment, as Meyer claims, rather than being able to somehow assess someone’s entire character, which is what we actually see Edward do in the books. For example, I’ve been known to have “Kill, maim, destroy, grrr,” type thoughts after, say, a particularly intense session of Assassin’s Creed, or while I’m stuck waiting for a bus in the freezing rain, or whatever. I’ve also been known to have the “I want to help” and the “I want to do the right thing” kind of thoughts, and both the good stuff and the bad stuff are vastly outnumbered by stuff like “I want a nap,” and “How long until lunch?” I think that’s how a lot of people are. But it’s never even considered that a seemingly bad person might just be having a bad day, or that a seemingly normal person might be a serial killer with something else on his mind, or something like that. I think it would be much more interesting to see vigilante!Edward struggling with his decisions, realizing people have a lot going on in their heads, wondering if the bad outweighs the good or the potential for good, or if he’s not seeing the whole picture, something like that. Or, you know, seeing anyone in Twilight really struggling with anything ever.
swenson on 1 September 2010, 13:01 said:
Of course, there’s a much better reason why vigilantism is wrong: because it puts the judgment of people in the hands of one person. Edward may be infallible in judging whether someone is guilty or innocent, but he is not necessarily infallible in judging what appropriate punishment is. While it is true that in real life (or at least real-world America) one man (a judge) decides the punishment for a convicted person, there are also possibilities for appeals or for punishments less than death. At the very least, judges are within a system with oversight.
At the same time, most governments would agree there are times when the death penalty is indeed applicable—which makes this book’s argument about the morality of killing incorrect. As Nate pointed out, Edward is infallible in determining guilt or innocence. Why should he have to submit the decision to a group of fallible humans? So the morality of killing people isn’t the question here, it’s the question of whether that’s an appropriate punishment or whether Edward has the right to act on his own.
In conclusion, Twilight’s justification for why Edward doesn’t eat bad people is not actually a good argument against vigilantism. Pointing out Twilight’s failing and offering several other, better thought-out arguments against vigilantism would have improved this book greatly.
Finally, I would just like to say that the terrible misinterpretation and logic concerning every single real philosopher this book references is pretty much as offensive to me as its terrible misinterpretation and logic concerning religious principles, seeing as I’m a Christian. Good grief! The logic in this book is awful!
Nate Winchester on 1 September 2010, 13:15 said:
Ah, but you’ve made a fatal flaw: Ed’s a Gary Stu. In Meyer’s world, he is always infallible in all things. XD
It’s about Twilight! At least it’s faithful to its source.
theArmourer on 1 September 2010, 14:17 said:
Mormons are not Christians
Just saying.
swenson on 1 September 2010, 14:28 said:
…good point. I’m not entirely certain why I was expecting more of it. We should write our own Twilight & Philosophy book… specifically why Twilight’s philosophy fails hard.
Nate Winchester on 1 September 2010, 14:36 said:
Swenson, I think printing out just half the articles on this site would fill that requirement.
theArmourer on 1 September 2010, 14:54 said:
Quite.
Steph (what is left) on 4 September 2010, 08:31 said:
I always thought that you get your first chance to make up your mind on the God issue, and once you’ve done that, every moment after that is a second chance to change your mind, in either direction. But once you’ve made a choice, God sees your heart. And second chances are gifts, not necessarily things we are automatically entitled to. Otherwise nobody would ever die. Everyone’s got their time, and just because most peoples’ is 75 years or so (in the Western world at least), doesn’t mean we’re entitled to that either.
Also, last rites and final confession only apply if you believe in Catholicism, right?
falconempress on 5 September 2010, 13:02 said:
To be honest, I really dont know what to even think about the concept of writing an excourse into the philosophical undertones of Twilight. While your analysis is entertaining, I just cant wrap my mind around the fact that someone had the balls to quote Tolstoy in a book about the philosophy of a pile of sparkly schlock.
The Drunk Fox on 7 September 2010, 15:27 said:
Every time, Nate…
Every time.
Stephenie Rowling on 4 July 2011, 23:01 said:
I said in the other comment how is not practical for Edward to keep eating humans even if they are criminals (and this are the type that usually get death penalty) he will eventually start killing innocents just because human blood is indeed addictive. So as much good he could do he will eventually end up thinking of all humans as blood.
Nate Winchester on 5 July 2011, 09:24 said:
Well it would have been nice for the essay authors to have addressed this issue. But isn’t Ed supposed to be some paragon of self control? Though I point out that Ed struggling with and dealing with that struggle would have made things more interesting.
…
Wait – that’s supposed to be in the books?